Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Amendment to allow registrars to opt out of marrying gay couples defeated in Lords

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Robert (Kettering) 8 Jul 2013, 7:32pm

    Good, one in the eye for the old bigot Williams then!

  2. Good to see these amendments crumbling one after another.

    1. Hi to everyone; I’m from South America, and I speak Spanish, so first of all I apologize for any grammar or vocabulary mistake you may find here.

      I would appreciate if someone that is a UK citizen or resident could answer me the following question:

      This defeated amendment is 100% gone or can it be discussed (and even voted on) AGAIN during the 3° reading of the Bill?

      Thanks very much.

      1. see my answer below

      2. Hi, if you look at the UK Parliament website it explains that Amendments can be introduced at 3rd reading in the Lords providing they have not been discussed and voted previously n either Committee or Report Stage.The rules also make it clear that an Amendment at 3rd reading would have to be significantly different in purpose and scope from a reading already voted on in report. It would not be acceptable to simply reword an old amendment and claim it was therefore new.

        Also, if you’ve seen any of the live streaming on Democracy Live it shows that some of their Lordships are starting to lose patience with the wreckers – telling them to “sit down” etc and refusing to let them go over the same old ground again.
        The good news is the bill is largely intact as per when it left the Commons – so when it goes back to the Commons on Tues/Weds – it should be easy. The Commons can only re-examine the Lords successful amendments – they can’t reopen the whole bill.

        1. Thank you so much, CG!

          Like Dave, you provided me a great explanation. Appart from the review of already-defeated amendments during 3rd Reading, I also wanted to know better about the “Consideration of Amendments” stage at the Commons (I mean when the bill returns to that Chamber)… I’m glad they can’t reopen the whole process, great GREAT news!

          You were right: I’ve read some explanations at the UK Parliament website but, as my English is not that cool, I preferred to ask for some UK citizens to explain the process to me in “plain English”, what in fact you’ve done. Again, thanks very much for your help and GOOOOOOD LUCK there!

  3. For the sake of clarity, the amendment which was defeated was to allow those registrars who are currently in post to opt out. It was made clear that there was no intention for registrars appointed in the future not to be required to register equal marriages. The debate centred around the public service role of a registrar and made clear that they were registering the marriage and not acting in a way which, as it were, condoned or blessed it.

  4. Glad the majority saw how ridiculous this opt out was. It would have been an insult not only the LGBT community but to every other minority group blighted by bigotry.

  5. Hi to everyone; I’m from South America, and I speak Spanish, so first of all I apologize for any grammar or vocabulary mistake you may find here.

    I would appreciate if someone that is a UK citizen or resident could answer me the following question:

    This defeated amendment is 100% gone or can it be discussed (and even voted on) AGAIN during the 3° reading of the Bill?

    Thanks very much.

    1. Any on the defeated amendments could be put back at the time of the Third Reading. Hopefully they will again be defeated, but nothing is certain.

      1. Hi Dave; I honestly apologize for my delay on answering to you.
        Thanks very much for your explanation!
        Cheers from South America, and good luck to you all!

  6. Common sense succeeds again – a heartening development!

  7. This was the only real result. Registrars are public servants, not religious ministers. Those who complain about their religious freedoms being infringed upon are in the wrong job.

  8. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Jul 2013, 8:03pm

    Another big smack in the gob for Baroness O’Cathain, Cumberlege and a host of others. Anyone in their right mind knows the ECHR ruled against the Lilian Ladele case. Clearly these loons just don’t get it. Unfit for purpose and they should all be booted out on their sorry arses.

  9. They’ll get the message soon that they aren’t going to be allowed to wreck this bill. Time to throw in the towel, bigots.

  10. My favourite comment and I wonder when LGBT became a race
    - Lord Cormack says there is a difference between racism and the “deeply held belief” of religious intolerance.
    Yes in one you can put a burning tyre on someone because you think you are better than they are on the other you can put a burning tyre on someone because a book of stories tells you you’re better than they are.

    1. As a person who was born and raised in Mississippi in the 1960′s and 70′s I can assure Lord Cormack that racism IS a “deeply held belief” and more often than not, at least in the American South, a deeply held RELIGIOUS belief. Look closely at the photos of racists attacking black children walking into schools on the first day after integration. The seething, red-faced bigots that are screaming at and threatening those kids are holding a Bible in one hand and a rebel flag in the other. The KKK considers itself a religious organization. Racism is more like homophobia than racists and homophobes and racist homophobes would like to admit.

  11. I hope the Lords can do the same thing for the teacher amendment.

  12. FilipinoBrit 9 Jul 2013, 12:53am

    What is the Baroness talking about totalitarian regime? Why they always have these pathetic reasons just to defeat the bill. It’s truly sad. Pass the bill and get done House of Lords. No more high school gimmicks. Greetings from the Philippines

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all